Oregon Background checks deliberately stalled?

[ilikegunspdx]

...Any and all hearsay posted here can, and likely will make it to sites like Reddit or equivalent. From there, who knows when MSN will pick it up, thus making the next headline is "Charleston loophole is giving guns to felons in Oregon"...

That's an excellent point and one we should all keep in mind. Internet rumors and memes travel like wildfire.

 

[MatthewDB]

Not a rumor. I do not have specific links I just spoke with a reputable FFL who would have no reason to lie. I should have asked specifics but I left it at that. Besides immediate ramifications I would be worried about delayed ramifications. Who's to say once all this 114 crap is over the ATF doesn't start targeting these people who got their firearms through the 3 day rule. People said 114 wouldn't pass and look what happened at this point if it is a grey area I'm not touching it.

If the FATF actually goes after someone who got a 3 day release and is a prohibited person, we should be cheering. What do we keep saying? Enforce the laws we already have before we make more.

OTOH, if they're running around and harrasing people who got 3 day releases, they can pound sand. I got two recently, and I KNOW I'm not a prohibited person. If they come without a warrant they'll be sent away with unkind words. If they DO have a warrant, I'll be speaking to a lawyer about going after whichever person lied to get said warrant.

 

[CLT65]

So right now, in the state of Oregon, a person who doesn't already have a firearm cannot legally acquire a firearm in any way for an indefinite amount of time? I don't understand how this is legal or legally tolerated. This has been going on for a couple years now, and it's always a backlog they can't catch up.

It's a nuisance for those of us who have plenty of guns already, but for someone who wants to legally obtain their first firearm, it sure seems like a completely unreasonable delay of a constitutional right. Is there anywhere else in the nation where a law-abiding individual cannot legally obtain any kind of firearm for who-knows-how-long, due to a bureaucratic backlog?

 

[solv3nt]

So right now, in the state of Oregon, a person who doesn't already have a firearm cannot legally acquire a firearm in any way for an indefinite amount of time? I don't understand how this is legal or legally tolerated. This has been going on for a couple years now, and it's always a backlog they can't catch up.

It's a nuisance for those of us who have plenty of guns already, but for someone who wants to legally obtain their first firearm, it sure seems like a completely unreasonable delay of a constitutional right. Is there anywhere else in the nation where a law-abiding individual cannot legally obtain any kind of firearm for who-knows-how-long, due to a bureaucratic backlog?

Not entirely true, the Harney County judge placed a TRO on the permit to purchase. The Federal circuit judge also placed a TRO on the permit to purchase.

Now, if you don't get an instant, you could say that it's not possible to buy a gun, but that would be slightly misleading, even if OSP is slow walking delays, which it sounds like they are.

 

[CLT65]

Not entirely true, the Harney County judge placed a TRO on the permit to purchase. The Federal circuit judge also placed a TRO on the permit to purchase.

Now, if you don't get an instant, you could say that it's not possible to buy a gun, but that would be slightly misleading, even if OSP is slow walking delays, which it sounds like they are.

That's exactly what I'm talking about. I wasn't referring to 114 at all; that's a whole other kettle of rotten fish.

From a realistic, practical perspective, the average law-abiding Oregonian right now, today, cannot legally obtain any firearm for an indefinite amount of time. Say a young lady with an abusive, stalker ex, looking to buy a gun for self defense, goes into a gun shop and fills out the paperwork. They're going to say "We'll let you know when approval comes back from the state. How long? We have no idea. A month, two, maybe three? Until that time, you cannot legally obtain a firearm."

I'm not saying there's a specific law, or that some people don't occasionally get instant approval, but for the average person, right now, that's the practical reality of it.

Added- If you had to get a permit to vote, or go to church, or express your political opinion, and there was a vague, indefinite delay before you could do so because of a backlog, there would be a nationwide outrage everywhere.

 

[solv3nt]

That's exactly what I'm talking about. I wasn't referring to 114 at all; that's a whole other kettle of rotten fish.

From a realistic, practical perspective, the average law-abiding Oregonian right now, today, cannot legally obtain any firearm for an indefinite amount of time. Say a young lady with an abusive, stalker ex, looking to buy a gun for self defense, goes into a gun shop and fills out the paperwork. They're going to say "We'll let you know when approval comes back from the state. How long? We have no idea. A month, two, maybe three? Until that time, you cannot legally obtain a firearm."

I'm not saying there's a specific law, or that some people don't occasionally get instant approval, but for the average person, right now, that's the practical reality of it.

Added- If you had to get a permit to vote, or go to church, or express your political opinion, and there was a vague, indefinite delay before you could do so because of a backlog, there would be a nationwide outrage everywhere.

My last two purchases in the last few weeks have been instants, so the instants are still going through. It is however, very unfortunate for those stuck in the vortex. Roll the dice, so you feel lucky?

 

[CLT65]

My last two purchases in the last few weeks have been instants, so the instants are still going through. It is however, very unfortunate for those stuck in the vortex. Roll the dice, so you feel lucky?

Which actually makes my point, in a very bad way. So some people get instant approval, no rhyme or reason, and others are randomly delayed, for who knows how long? The occasional few get their "rights" quickly, whereas the unwashed masses might see theirs at the whim of the state, someday in the future yet to be determined. Doesn't sound like rights to me.

For example, if I am secure in my home from illegal search and seizure, but some inner city lowlife gets his apartment raided without a proper warrant, do I actually have my Fourth Amendment rights? NO! If the lowliest American's constitutional rights are violated with impunity, none of us really have them. It becomes a privilege instead of a right.

 

[solv3nt]

Which actually makes my point, in a very bad way. So some people get instant approval, no rhyme or reason, and others are randomly delayed, for who knows how long? The occasional few get their "rights" quickly, whereas the unwashed masses might see theirs at the whim of the state, someday in the future yet to be determined. Doesn't sound like rights to me.

For example, if I am secure in my home from illegal search and seizure, but some inner city lowlife gets his apartment raided without a proper warrant, do I actually have my Fourth Amendment rights? NO! If the lowliest American's constitutional rights are violated with impunity, none of us really have them. It becomes a privilege instead of a right.

Unfortunately, with the exception of OSP slow walking delays, the influx of purchases have virtually all been driven by 114. I've personality spent around $5k since it passed.

IP114 is directly responsible for the mess that were currently in.

 

[br1sket]

Ive purchased 3 firearms in the last month and received 3 day releases from 2 different FFLs. I always instant cleared prior to this measure 114 clusterbubblegum. Just received confirmation that i cleared yesterday on 2 of my 3 day releases.

Id say nearly every FFL outside the city of Portland (ignore big box stores) is doing 3 day releases atm. Personally i wouldnt buy a firearm from an FFL that isn't doing 3 day releases in the current climate. They have earned a customer for life from me, I could care less about paying $50 cheaper somewhere else.

I know some FFLs don't want to do it, and that is their choice. Some do it for CHL holders only, or known customers. I don't believe FFLs are under any legal liability as long as they submit the background check and wait the mandated 3 days. Now, they might have some civil liability in a worst case scenario, and that is simply because jurors are often selected specifically based on their complete ignorance of the law and thus can be pursuaded to believe anything.

 

[ilikegunspdx]

Seems like I've heard the same things over and over 100 times in this thread and the other m114 background check threads. Just an observation.

 

[solv3nt]

Seems like I've heard the same things over and over 100 times in this thread and the other m114 background check threads. Just an observation.

I think we need another 114 thread

 

[Cavedweller]

From a realistic, practical perspective, the average law-abiding Oregonian right now, today, cannot legally obtain any firearm for an indefinite amount of time.

Not exactly. They can still get one from an family member. Not that that's a substitute for the right to openly purchase one, but it's still a way. If someone really needed one, and a family member was willing to part with one...

No need to lecture me on the loss of Constitutional rights, I'm with you. Just pointing out that your statement that there is "no legal way" isn't quite correct.

 

[CLT65]

Not exactly. They can still get one from an family member. Not that that's a substitute for the right to openly purchase one, but it's still a way. If someone really needed one, and a family member was willing to part with one...

No need to lecture me on the loss of Constitutional rights, I'm with you. Just pointing out that your statement that there is "no legal way" isn't quite correct.

I hear what you're saying, but you're making my point even stronger. That would only work for some, and a very select few at that. Not everyone has family in-state, or family that owns a gun. For those that don't get the rare instant approval, or have family that will give them a gun, there is literally no legal way for them to obtain a gun in any reasonable amount of time.

I personally don't have family in the state of Oregon who could give me a gun, and I just got sent to the back of the line yesterday with a BGC at BiMart, first time ever in the three decades I've been buying guns. Why? Who knows. I figured I was on the frequent flier list.

So, if I didn't already have guns, there would be no legal way that I could posses one at this time.

I'm not trying to argue with you all, and I know I'm preaching to the choir here, but something seems very, very wrong about this. If any other constitutional right was being delayed to this degree in this country, the ACLU would be having a field day.

 

[Danall]

Not exactly. They can still get one from an family member. Not that that's a substitute for the right to openly purchase one, but it's still a way. If someone really needed one, and a family member was willing to part with one...

No need to lecture me on the loss of Constitutional rights, I'm with you. Just pointing out that your statement that there is "no legal way" isn't quite correct.

Totally true, I've purchased 3 (oops first version of this mistakenly had 23!!) firearms since 114 passed, none with "Instant approval" just used different shops that that honor the 3/5 day provision. All legal and quick purchases. Some folks just seem to ignore information that contradicts their established position.

 

[CLT65]

Totally true, I've purchased 23 firearms since 114 passed, none with "Instant approval" just used different shops that that honor the 3/5 day provision. All legal and quick purchases. Some folks just seem to ignore information that contradicts their established position.

Some of you all are missing my point completely. I'm not saying that "nobody can get guns"; not at all. My point is about principles and practicalities, not whether you personally can get a gun. It's about a messed up system, with delays that the powers-that-be don't seem to be interested in doing something about. It seems that most people don't understand principles anymore.

You guys got me on the 3-day thing. Apparently one can get a 3-day release if you're savvy enough to search around for an FFL who will do it. It appears that's the only way, and clearly they hate it and want to stop it. The average person who goes down to BiMart or Cabela's is in for a bit of a shock though, as they're in for a very long wait.

Again, I'm not trying to argue with anyone here, or stand on any kind of untenable position. I'm pretty sure we're all on the same side here, unless anyone wants to argue that it's all good to deny others so long as you can get yours.

 

[Pandaz3]

It's up to the feds to go after felons with guns, not the FFL. Once the BGC check is submitted, they have 3 days to respond. If they don't respond, the law says the person gets the gun. Why would the FFL be in trouble from a federal agency for following that agencies procedures?

That's a myth, not the law, read carefully, including punctuation.

 

[bfoosh006]

My friend bought a in-stock / on the showroom floor handgun on Nov. 9th.

He has a 100% clean record, and had been approved about 3 months earlier for a different single handgun purchase. ( so second purchase in his life )

I kept pestering him to go ask Cabelas about it, as the original time frame dwindled down closer to the original 114 dates.

Well he phoned today, and was told his background check had exceeded the 30 day limit. So he would have to resubmit the background check.

The person on the phone from the gun counter said come on in, and they would resubmit .. he should be approved in a few days.

He went in and was told by the gun counter Manager that all the firearms with mags bigger then 10rds, had been sent back to Corporate , and he was, in a few words "Poop" out of luck.

He asked why he wasn't informed about ANY of this and the Manager said "he had slipped through the cracks"

He asked when and how he was supposed to get his money back ?... Same answer, "He had slipped through the cracks"

Cabelas refunded him is purchase cost.

The friend never received ANY phone calls or e-mails about his purchase status or that Cabelas had decided to send his in stock purchase back to re-distribute to others buyers.


FWIW , my last handgun purchase took 5 weeks to be approved, and I picked it up. No 30 day nonsense.



The moral to this story... If you have a pending approval, you better check on it. DO NOT expect a call or e-mail !!

Places like Cabelas, may have allowed your background check to exceed the 30 day limit... and not bothered to tell you any thing about it, or bothered to phone you and tell you your waiting in Good Faith is pointless. Let alone bothered to try and refund your money.

God knows how many other places "might" be doing the same thing.


AGAIN, check on your purchase.

 

[pdx210]

We should all get together and pay for a class-action lawsuit violation of our 2nd amendment right

 

[Pandaz3]

We should all get together and pay for a class-action lawsuit violation of our 2nd amendment right

What would that cost?

 

[Aaron David]

What would that cost?

Filing fee, and an attorneys time and resources.

But seriously, this is something that OFF should be doing. We need to hit back at the state, and this is a good way to do it. Make it cost them. Basing it off of the delay of service misinformation, LGS lost revenue, firearm purchaser moneys basically being held hostage, and multiply all of that by the 30 plus thousand people who have been caught up in this mess, the state could end up being out a big chunk of money. And that is something they notice, 'cause they sure as shooting don't notice our loss of rights.

Hit them back at every point possible.

(yes, I know it is my first post. Not much of a forum guy.)